User talk:SirFozzie/Archive 17

Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war
The Sarah Palin wheel war arbitration case, on which you have commented, is now open.
 * Evidence for the arbitrators may be submitted at Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war/Evidence. Evidence should be submitted within one week, if possible.
 * Your contributions are also welcome at Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war/Workshop.

For the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny   ✉  21:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the reality check (not sarcastic). Apparently I needed one. =( Time for some fresh air methinks. --mboverload @  02:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

{talkback|Ron Ritzman}

You have mail
Your assistance would be appreciated. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Received, and will review when I have a free moment. SirFozzie (talk) 20:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't get it
What exactly do Sarah Palin related pages have to do with the so-called ID Cabal?

I've yet to see an answer. Can you give me one? Aunt Entropy (talk) 02:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * From what I understand, some editors wanted to put a section on the Sarah Palin article regarding her beliefs in evolution versus creationism, etcetera. That struck Kelly and others as non WP:NPOV, and violating WP:UNDUE, which ld to warring back and forth. (Plus jossi and Kelly were already part of an issue that in front of ArbCom) SirFozzie (talk) 02:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Pointless anyways, I think. If she was pushing creationism or ID, you'd think it would have been an issue when she was in local politics, or even when she was on the fricken PTA. To think she waited until she was nominated VP to turn theocrat defies logic. Aunt Entropy (talk) 02:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I'd like to say she turned theocrat back when she said that a $30 billion gas pipeline in Alaska wouldn't work right unless "Alaskan's hearts were good with God", but I'm not the target audience, and I'll just have to hope to God (ha! I made a funny) that she doesn't get elected. But that's getting off-WP-ish, so I'll leave it there :) SirFozzie (talk) 02:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Red Brick School nom
It was looking a bit light for a 5x increase in text in 5 days to qualify. Ive added a bit ... can you do some? Hook will have to be changed I think as there is an older one mentioned in a blog Victuallers (talk) 15:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It was in the National register as the longest continuous running one-room brickschoolhouse. I'll see if I can add a bit more. SirFozzie (talk) 10:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Unblock of POTW
Can you add this to the ANI page - its not loading for me atm: "Terrible unblock. What makes an admin thinkt hey can ignore the consensus from the numerous people who weighed into the debate and u8nblock because they think it is better is beyond me Viridae Talk 22:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)"~Thanks Foz. Viridae Talk 22:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. SirFozzie (talk) 22:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Stanford Super Series
Just wanted to thank you for the addition to the Stanford Super Series. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.65.3.184 (talk) 23:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem. I just didn't want the reader to get confused to say "Ok, they named 17 players, why is there 15 names on the list?".. Should be itneresting.. wish I could see it on TV here in the States ;) SirFozzie (talk) 23:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration Request
I haven't done a request for arbitration before and wasn't sure if the template was automatically generated to include the detail posted in (rather than blanking it). Apologies for the damage. I'll redo the request, hopefully properly.--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

i dont understand how to message you
is this how? i received your message. you should be pleased to note i replaced all of the references that had been deleted and regarded all parts of that page. further, i have referenced everything added, and must point out that a neutral point of view does not equal a positive only. to be neutral means to state facts - which is all that has been done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wonderlucy (talk • contribs) 18:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

My comments

 * 1) My edit summary is a good testament to how I feel. He could and should handled that differently, he chose not to because he obviously does not care how people react to what he tosses off. I prefer to look at things like CIVIL and NPA in the letter in which they were written, instead of this recent trend of considering ANYTHING remotely possibly not totally 10000% positive as somehow "bad". That's not what NPA and CIVIL meant back in the day and the fact that they've been hijacked from ways to keep a calm atmosphere to ways to slap around critics is irony writ large.
 * 2) I will AGF and assume you are being facetious, since it's obvious Mr. Weber himself is very active at WR. In the case you are being facetious, then heh, good joke. If you aren't, perhaps you should visit the place and review his posts there.

Enjoy your day at Wikipedia. -- Logical Premise Ergo? 02:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * To be as polite as I can -- I'm from a looong wiki-time ago, when admins were just process jockeys doing boring crap and you could make new articles all day long and still have redlinks everywhere. Wiki today is ... hilariously overtended. I understand your view of how he relates to the WR crowd -- to be fair, he strikes me as logically consistent but also brusque. It's his arrogant self-assurance I dislike, and while I understand your wish to not stir the fecal matter, I'm afraid I can't bring myself to knuckle under to someone who knocks people down in the virtual street. -- Logical Premise Ergo? 02:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Well done!
This was well-needed. I'm not sure it was heeded, but I salute you for trying to cool down a heated situation, and bring people back down to earth. There are too many people who get turned off from Wikipedia precisely because of the heated infighting that occur in situations like these, and I just wanted to let you know that your efforts to calm the fury were not overlooked. Have a great day!--Aervanath lives in  the Orphanage  16:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you explain please
Hi Fozz could you explain what you mean here. BigDunc Talk 19:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure Dunc. I'm seeing tag teaming, and blatant bad faith (You guys have been told flat out that Thunderer is NOT sockpuppeting, yet you continue to make the charge). I don't have any idea of the facts on the ground situation whether who;s right.. but this edit-warring will stop. SirFozzie (talk) 19:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And what edit war was I involved in? BigDunc  Talk 20:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * How about this one for starters ... - A l is o n  ❤ 21:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I see one revert by me Alison then an edit war between domer and thunderer. I then made a few edits an hour or so after my revert which were all reverted, and if you look not once reverted back by me. I then asked both editors to stop the edit war which they didn't have too as you protected the page. It then spilt on to other articles not once did I edit any of them or revert. So again how the hell am I getting pulled in to this. BigDunc  Talk 22:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Fozz are you going to ignore my questions like Alison has, I see no bad faith from me and i'm sure if you ask Thunderer he will say the same, nor have I tag teamed as I have said to you I have avoided this article and editor to stop these accusations, I did all I could to stop the edit war by asking both editors to stop I dont see what more I could have done. I did not revert any of the edits I made that were reverted, so please explain it to me becuse I really dont understand what is going on here. BigDunc  Talk 20:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!
I appreciate your help with the Gilpen situation, I figured it would probably be best deleted. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 06:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, in this case BLP definitely applies.. we shouldn't process wonk articles like that that can do harm. SirFozzie (talk) 06:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration policy changes
Hi. I think I've given you the wrong end of the stick -- we're still looking at the form these proposals should take -- we won't start voting for a while yet! Sam Korn (smoddy) 22:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Domer
Fozzie, may I draw your attention to what I beleive  is a an abusive attack on Domer48. His has had his ability to talk on his own page removed for spurious reasons; he has had a punitive block on the outrageous charge of "template abuse". So, yet another Irish editor who is seeking to remove British pov from Ireland-related articles is being silenced? Is this how Wiki generates "consensus"? Block all the dissenting voices? Sarah777 (talk) 14:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sarah. He kept requesting spurious unblocks, that's exactly what his page was locked for. As the locking admin said. If he let the admin know he was going to cut that out, the page was going to be unlocked. Domer never asked for it... SirFozzie (talk) 20:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Requesting spurious unblocks? Back that up please. -- Domer48  'fenian'  07:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Why the bloody blue blazes was your page locked after your fourth or fifth request then? SirFozzie (talk) 09:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Domer, c'mon. People normally only get two or three shots at unblock requests before things get locked down as "unblock abuse". Admins patrol the unblock requests and if they see persistent requests again and again, well ... - A l is o n  ❤ 09:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Must I ask again? Requesting spurious unblocks? Could you tell me why my page was blocked? My first request was rejected because of "throwing wild accusations" as was my second. So without been given the oppertunity to illustrate my concerns, it was rejected. So my "wild accusations" were not even presented, and they were rejected. My third request was rejected because I did not request to be unblocked, I was asking for the oppertunity to address this behaviour that precipitated a general edit war. So having to clarify what I was looking for, I placed another request, and got blocked. Now please explain how I was requesting spurious unblocks? Alison, please explain were was the "unblock abuse?" -- Domer48  'fenian'  13:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Domer - I'm not saying there was "unblock abuse"; I'm just stating how the process works from the point-of-view of an unblock-request patroller. You don't get indefinite shots at it, as those guys are crazy-busy, too - A l is o n  ❤ 15:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok then, I was not abusing the unblock request. So why was I blocked? I was making a genuine attempt per our blocking policy and it was rejected. Why was it rejected? It appears to me that you have a judge who makes a determination without hearing the evidence? So admins are no clairvoyant in that they are able to divine my intensions, and describe my concerns as “wild accusations?” Since Tznkai seems to think there is more to this whole issue, and in my attempt to raise it resulted in my being blocked, I would like Fozz to explain Why the bloody blue blazes was my page locked after my fourth request? I want Fozz to explain why he considers my requests to be spurious? Now here is my unblock requests, were they handled correctly? -- Domer48  'fenian'  16:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. Looks like you'll have your handsfull for a bit, by grab me by whatever communication method strikes your fancy when you get a chance.--Tznkai (talk) 02:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Drink
Unidentified man in green firing turret (talk) 00:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)